Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Umm, so children are people too? (Score 1) 256

Yeah, food pairings, who'd have thunk it?! Oh wait, every chef since the middle ages.

And no, veggies don't pair with fried foods. I'm betting that after fried chicken nuggets, and fried burgers, there's no nutrition left from the veggies that just slide right through.

Oh, the sequence you say? Right, like the antipasti course, the salad course, the appetizer course.

And, this is just my observation, tell me if you've heard this before, you don't want your burger to get cold, so you'll eat it while it's hot. Then you've got cold veggies, which are decidedly less appealing.

So, let's summarize: children, aka hungry hungry humans, forced to eat an entire meal in a single plate, choose to eat the hot entree, aka the most nutrient-filled, food, first, and then may not remain hungry for something that should have been eaten long before.

And we're surprised? We're surprised that a one-plate one-course meal isn't fully balanced? That's why the nuggets ought to have been served with a tangy marinara dipping sauce, wherein three servings of veggies could have been blitzed.

Comment Can we give up now? (Score 1) 57

Are we still expecting to build a system that can't be hacked? I don't understand why anyone would think that possible.

We gave up on that hundreds of years ago for so many things -- think the lock on your front door, next to the glass window; or your car, with the slim-jim. You can walk up to anyone on the street, and just stab them to death with a kitchen knife. You can drive your car onto the sidewalk and kill a dozen people in mere seconds.

I think it's high-time we stop wasting so much time and money trying to resist, and start planning to deter and penalize.

Comment burried shovel (Score 1) 146

So, in a commercial environment, it would cost $5 Billion of commercial developers being paid a proper wage. I get that. But in this day and age, if you wanted to build that sort of thing, you wouldn't hire developers commercially. You'd create an open source project and let the developer community at large assist in your project.

In doing so, it would cost far less. I cite, as my proof-of-concept example, an organization called the linux foundation, which has 115,013,302 total lines of source code and didn't spend $5 billion to get there.

I used to wonder how I'd dig up my shovel, without my shovel. Now I wonder how I buried my shovel, without my shovel.

Comment The wrong way (Score 1) 203

Once again, listen carefully. You don't deter/avoid/eliminate malicious behaviour like this by creating more stringent testing methods. What you've here is decided to spend more money to create better compliance testing, in a world where those being tested (car makers) can profit by finding better ways to cheat.

Congrats, you're just going to breed better cheaters.

And it's obvious why: your playbook is public, theirs is not. They know how you're going to test them. You don't know how they are going to cheat. And we're back to security theatre.

The truly aggravating part is that there's a very easy way to deter this sort of thing: you make it simply destructive to their bottom line. If the penalty for cheating makes it not worthwhile cheating, then they won't cheat. I believe we've said it can be as high as $18 billion dollars. Good start. We're also talking about cars, engineering, safety concerns, false advertising, and stubbing the laws. Sounds like jail time to me -- for anyone responsible for the code, or for supervising the code, right up the chain.

That's why I don't commit significant crimes. It's not because I'm being tested. It's because I risk jail time.

Comment Atlantic? (Score 1) 683

Sounds no different than crossing the atlantic, a few hundred years ago, in a small wooden cabin, on a dizzyingly pitching ship, forever adjusting the sails and bailing water, developing all sorts of mysterious new illnesses (e.g. scurvy), under constant threat of pirates.

Now you have a choice.

You can choose the earlier voyages, where the only benefit was for a shorter route to some spices -- man, how bland was their food?

Or, you can choose the later voyages where you'd be reaching a new, classless world of hostile animals and savages.

The trip to mars is for precisely the same two reasons as any trip has always been: for land, and for the pioneering spirit.

I was first, and it is mine!

Comment Re:Monitoring isn't peace of mind. (Score 1) 212

The monitoring company doesn't need to call you first. They need to do whatever you tell them to do. And the question is not whether or not they try to call you first. The question is what do they do when you aren't reachable.

None of this is an issue if you're by your phone waiting for a call. If you can act, then all of this is meaningless. The question is what happens to your notification when you're fucking your dog? What happens when you're on a plane, underground, covered in peanut butter, on vacation?

Then what.

You don't hire a monitoring company to monitor anything. You don't hire a middle man at all. You hire an action man to act on your behalf when you cannot. And then, you ask them to try to be a middle man first, because that's cheaper.

Comment Ten years?! (Score 1) 263

(That's my first interrobang of the day.)

So, a system, vital not only to a process but to a nation's entire constitution and fundamental to its very sense of right and wrong, and the basis for its existence and the reason it's at war with other nations, is ten years old, and you want to replace it?

Here are the HUGE problems.

First, it's used, what, once every 4 years? So you want to replace the system with something new basically every third time. So the first is the test to see if it works, and the second is the fix that hopefully works. Sounds exactly like presidential terms to me. Maybe it should simply be replaced with each new president?

Oh wait, but the bill of rights is also more than ten years old. So are the planes and the guns and the houses and the voters.

Perhaps, just maybe, the system should be built to last a little longer than ten years.

Just a thought.

Oh yeah, there are a few satelites, telescopes, and infrastructure in orbit that are older than ten years.

Comment Re:All useless. Edge is missing huge features. (Score 1) 137

There's a difference between mouse gestures, which are a rare feature, relatively new, and are a user-selected, per-user feature, and printing, which is a cross-user, fundamentally long-standing feature, scripted away from the user. The former is how it's used, the latter is what it does.

You say they "have programmers to fix the thing themselves". Well, they also have testers to find the problems themselves and analysts to prioritize the problem themselves. You can pray if you want to; I don't.

And no, there's no benefit to me, professionally, from my product suddenly working in edge when before it did not. In fact, there are two huge on-going benefits every day that it remains broken -- welcome to business: profit and service.

Usability is a theshold scenario. Countless tiny things are tiny until they add up to something that crosses that threshold, at which point the entire item becomes useless. For me, mine, and those around me, a browser that can't print is that threshold -- making it useless.

Comment Re:All useless. Edge is missing huge features. (Score 1) 137

Again, it's not my job to fix their product. They aren't paying me.

You are correct that my clients enjoy the "doesn't work" report. There's a reason that they all do it. It "doesn't work" for their business. It's not only true of bugs. It's also true of things being the wrong colour, or a missing feature. If it doesn't work for their business, then it simply doesn't work.

Asking them for more details isn't a part of their report. It's a part of your/my solution. In my world, if a client says it doesn't work, and I don't fix it, they stop using my product, stop paying me, and go elsewhere. The vast majority of "doesn't work" issues are deal-breakers in my industry.

I'm not interested in making sure that microsoft fixes it. I don't benefit from that fix.

You've missed the entire point here. The original post is about benchmarking edge versus other browsers. My point was that you can't benchmark a partial browser against a complete browser.

Stay in context.

Comment Re:Monitoring isn't peace of mind. (Score 2) 212

I think you've just found the values of fake cameras. Not real cameras. The bad guys can't see the feeds.

And now, you're constantly watching your own cameras, worrying about your home when you're away, and worrying about your data reception all the time. It's now your responsibility, your duty, your job, to watch your house 24/7/52+1.

Comment Monitoring isn't peace of mind. (Score 4, Insightful) 212

If you're constantly checking your cameras and your feeds, and waiting for notifications of motion, that ain't peace of mind. Peace of mind is specifically the opposite -- i.e. not checking, not being notified, not being worried that every time you're underground or in an area of poor reception that someone is breaking into your home.

Peace of mind is knowing that it's someone else's problem. That means that the alarm doesn't go to you, it goes to someone else, like an alarm monitoring company, and that they'll deal with the problem -- including calling you as much as it takes to reach you. That means you can leave, go on vacation, go to the movies, and not care.

Especially considering that high crime rate is less of a problem when you aren't home -- because you aren't in any danger.

Just put up entry contacts -- doors, windows, glass-breaks. Motion sensors are generally irrelevant if you have any ambulatory pets. Then let it be someone else's problems. Cameras fight insurance fraud, but do nothing in terms of security, unless you've got someone watching the feeds.

And damn it, befriend your neighbours, ensure that they know your routines and your vacation schedules.

Beyond that, you aren't going to stop Ethan Hunt, no matter what you do.

Comment Re:All useless. Edge is missing huge features. (Score 1) 137

It's "removing" a feature not because it's IE, but because this is a feature that's been in every browser for ages. If you build an e-mail client today, and it doesn't support flagging messages, then you've removed a feature.

It's useless because if it's missing one vital feature, then it's missing many more. And since it's not my job to seek out bugs in other people's products, and it's not my job to solve them, then I have no interest in telling them. I work for my clients, and when this kind of thing happens, then I get to solve it for my clients, not for Microsoft. My clients pay me. It's that simple.

I'm not here bitching. I'm here explaining that benchmarks between full-fledged browsers that work, and mini crummy browsers that don't work, aren't worth shit.

Comment Re:All useless. Edge is missing huge features. (Score 1) 137

After the e-commerce of the purchasing, and the contact CRM of the mailings, and the scheduling software of the event conference, and the ad display network for the sponsors, and the box office sales systems and cash drawers, and the touch-screen kiosks, and the barcode scanners at the door, and the web-site selling the thing in the first place, and the private wifi network in the building that doesn't have a reliable one of its own.

After all that, the ticket's a report, but only if it can be printed properly.

Oh yeah, and the ticket has contact information, event information, and sponsor ads and a barcode right on it.

Yes everything output by a complicated system to a consumer is a report.

"It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was someone else." -- Rogers